Wab Kinew and pragmatism

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 23/03/2024 (589 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Last October, a Globe and Mail article introduced Wab Kinew, Manitoba’s newly elected premier, to a national audience with the prediction that under his leadership the NDP government would be guided in its actions by “Prairie pragmatism.” We all know that Manitoba is the start of the Prairies going west. What pragmatism means is far less clear.

After a varied career as a musician, author, broadcaster and university administrator, Kinew only entered party politics in 2016. His evolution as a political leader is still unfolding and the future trajectory of the NDP government largely remains to be seen.

As a non-partisan commentator who has never met Kinew, I am interested to see how over time his government balances realism and idealism, ideological principles and political pragmatism, and inspirational rhetoric and practical actions.

Pragmatism is a varied, contested philosophical tradition, as well as a popular, vague label used in media.

After offering some brief points about what it means to be a pragmatist in politics, I point to some early signs that premier Kinew has a pragmatic streak to his leadership philosophy and style.

In general, pragmatism involves practical reasoning, problem solving and cautious change. This orientation is somewhat different from an ideology which represents a more comprehensive view of human nature, a vision of the future, and a prescription on the role of government in achieving that vision.

In terms of the traditional ideological spectrum of right versus left, pragmatism is centrist. Ideologies which emerged in earlier centuries are seen to have little relevance to governing in the 21st century. Most members of the public are not ideological. What they want are governments that are more responsive, work better and are affordable.

Pragmatists recognize that policies are not eternal truths, but hypotheses being tested to see how they work. In addition to experimentation, pragmatic governing places more emphasis on sound procedures than on the fulfilment of certain ideological principles.

Pragmatic leaders and governments worry about the feasibility of their policy and budgetary choices. Calculations about feasibility involve judgments about available policy knowledge, money, organizational capacity and the urgency of the required actions.

Pragmatic leaders recognize that meeting the public where it is — not being too far ahead of public opinion — is crucial to successful governing. Also, it is not enough just to make the “ right” decision; achieving understanding and support for decisions, especially among the groups most directly affected, is a crucial further step in the policy process.

Pragmatic leaders insist they will govern on behalf of all segments of society. They strive for co-operative relationships with different groups and organizations and seek to avoid conflict. Governing on the basis of a real, or a perceived, consensus is seen as the basis for both good policy and good politics.

In the face of uncertainty, resource scarcity and the risks of political backlashes, pragmatic politicians tend to exaggerate the constraints they face in making and defending tough choices. As a result, marginal or incremental changes from the status quo become the predominant pattern of policy making, including budgetary policy. Decisive, bold and radical changes are mainly avoided as too high risk.

Pragmatists often claim to be “telling it like it is,” not telling the public what it wants to hear. “Under-promising and over-delivering” is their mantra for successful campaigning and governing. In an era of permanent campaigning which involves heavily reliance on political marketing, inspirational and aspirational rhetoric may be used to disguise a moderate, incremental governing style.

The dividing line between ideology and pragmatism is not straightforward. Many of the multiple tasks of governments do not give rise to ideological disagreements. Within political parties there are varying degrees of ideological conviction. Even a government that follows a moderate, incremental governing style relies to some degree on values and a general sense of direction.

How does this summary of pragmatism fit with the governing style of Kinew? Somewhat, but not perfectly.

As Manitoba’s first First Nations premier, Kinew brings deep knowledge of Indigenous history, heritage and spiritualism to public office. As a relative newcomer to party politics, he is less steeped in social democratic traditions represented by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation/ NDP, which has always combined an aspirational social movement goal of greater equality with the electoral politics goal of winning power.

Given the repression, lack of power and poverty faced by Indigenous people, there is clearly considerable overlap and intersection with the broad goals of the NDP.

Early in his governing period, Kinew has displayed some pragmatic instincts. Here are some examples condensed to brief points.

One of his fundamental political beliefs, he declared, is that the economic horse must pull the social reform cart. He went on to say this means that budgets must be balanced, if not immediately, then at least before interest payments on provincial debt limit investments in priority areas like health and education. He kept the tax cuts introduced by the former PC government.

On criminal justice, he accepted the need to deal with the sources of crime, while also promising to come down hard on serious offenders.

On education, facing a backlash, the government backed away from a plan to eliminate provincial exams in favour of other student assessment methods.

Using his strong communications skills, Kinew has been highly visible on all major issues and he has sought to assure all parts of society that his government will be responsive to their concerns.

In a relatively small, less affluent province such as Manitoba, realism often combines with pragmatism to produce moderate governing approaches which match the beliefs of most Manitobans who are not strongly ideological. The Pallister period illustrates the dangers of a domineering, ideologically driven premier.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba.